get_merge_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by indicating the response includes compact summaries of deployments, commit additions, and approvals. However, it does not clarify read-only behavior, authentication needs, or any potential side effects, though 'get' strongly implies a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key requirement. The only flaw is the parameter-name mismatch, but that is an accuracy issue rather than a conciseness/structure issue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the schema marks zero parameters as required. The description attempts to fill the gap with an either/or requirement, but the wrong parameter names and omission of whether project_id is also required leave the invocation conditions unclear. An agent could easily produce an invalid call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers all three parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is appropriately 3. The description adds a meaningful either/or constraint beyond the schema, but it uses incorrect parameter names ('mergeRequestIid' vs 'merge_request_iid' and 'branchName' vs 'source_branch'), which could confuse an agent selecting parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Get details of a merge request' with a specific focus on 'compact deployment, commit addition, and approval summaries.' This differentiates it from related siblings like get_merge_request_approval_state or get_merge_request_diffs by emphasizing the summary nature of the response.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a precondition: 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided,' which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any cases where it should not be used. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.